Talk: Biogenic weapon

Latest revision as of 01:53, 20 June 2007

What do people think about the distinction between "biogenic weapon" and "biological weapon"? Is there one? Should there be a redirect? -- Kingfisher 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The biological weapon article was recently created, and they do share one common reference to the Teplan blight (not sure how the blight was referred to in the referenced episodes). In any case, biogenics seems to refer to biological substances that are "created" by lifeforms; presumably "biological" means "of biology"... which is essentially "of life"... which sounds broader than "created by life". Perhaps all biogenic weapons are biological, but not all biological are biogenic. Non-biogenic (but still biological) examples may be poisons and other toxins. This interpretation is similar to how Wikipedia talks about biological warfare and chemical warfare, unless I'm missing something (which I probably am). - Intricated ^talk 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Before creating biological weapon, I looked at that exact problem. I would define it as all biological weapons are biogenic weapons, and biogenic weapons are broader (including both biological weapons and at least some chemical weapons, based on the opening paragraph of the biogenic weapon article. Alternately, there may be some overlap of biogenic and biological weapons, but not complete in one way or another. That's part of my rationale, at least, for going ahead with the biological weapon as its own article. --umrguy42 01:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 What do people think about the distinction between "biogenic weapon" and "[[biological weapon]]"? Is there one? Should there be a redirect? -- [[User:Kingfisher|Kingfisher]] 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 :The biological weapon article was recently created, and they do share one common reference to the [[Teplan blight]] (not sure how the blight was referred to in the referenced episodes).  In any case, [[biogenic]]s seems to refer to [[biology|biological substance]]s that are "created" by [[life]]forms; presumably "biological" means "of biology"... which is essentially "of life"... which sounds broader than "created by life".  Perhaps all biogenic weapons are biological, but not all biological are biogenic.  Non-biogenic (but still biological) examples may be [[poison]]s and other [[toxin]]s.  This interpretation is similar to how Wikipedia talks about [[wikipedia:biological warfare|biological warfare]] and [[wikipedia:chemical warfare|chemical warfare]], unless I'm missing something (which I probably am). - [[User:Intricated|Intricated]] <sup> [[User Talk:Intricated|<span style="color:#66BBFF;">talk</span></sup>]] 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
+::Before creating [[biological weapon]], I looked at that exact problem. I would define it as all biological weapons are biogenic weapons, and biogenic weapons are broader (including both biological weapons and at least some chemical weapons, based on the opening paragraph of the biogenic weapon article. Alternately, there may be some overlap of biogenic and biological weapons, but not complete in one way or another. That's part of my rationale, at least, for going ahead with the biological weapon as its own article. --[[User:Umrguy42|umrguy42]] 01:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)